More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society

Subject: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: ThreeSheds
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:12 PM

More buffoonery fro Performing Rights Soc

Can you credit this!!

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: meself
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:15 PM

Complete and utter idiots.

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:18 PM

blunderful

snork

They had to stop playing the radio in the council office were I work, because a customer might call and overhear it. No skin off my nose cause it was just local pop radio anyway.

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: meself
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:20 PM

I wonder if the big radio stations won't weigh in on this at some point. Or do you have big radio stations over there, other than the Beeb?

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: meself
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:21 PM

Don't get me wrong - I'd be just as happy never again to hear a radio when I'm trying to do some innocent shopping -

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 07:26 PM

I wonder if they gave her blue roses - see the link to story about the new genetically modified blue roses - tho they look mauve to me!

sandra

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 07:35 PM

If SOCAN ever did anything that fu#kin' stupid I'd quit.

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: meself
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:03 PM

Well, Peace, I'll tell you a little story ..... A few years ago, my brother was invited to a Bat Mitzvah at which one of his music students would be performing one of my brother's pieces, which had been published in a collection for students. When my brother arrived at the event, the parents and kid were in a fluster because a rep from SOCAN had shown up and announced that the kid couldn't perform the piece without paying SOCAN $59(!) on the spot. My brother told the guy that he was the composer, and he gave his permission for the performance. Didn't make no never-mind - the money had to be paid. So my brother resolved the matter, as he thought, by telling the parents that if they paid, he would reimburse them when he, as the composer in question, received his payment from SOCAN. Now, if you've stopped laughing, you can take a guess as to how much of that $59 my brother ever saw ....

Was the heavy guy really from SOCAN? I don't know - but if not, he had cottoned on to the idea that he could plausibly use the existence of SOCAN as a way to shake down musicians (and their families).

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:09 PM

Jaysus. Did your brother ever check with SOCAN?

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: meself
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:28 PM

No, I don't think so. He should have, of course, but the guy's so busy he doesn't know if he's coming or going half the time ....

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:42 PM

I can see SOCAN doing that because their raison d'etre is the collection of performing rights fees, and once a song or work is listed with them they have that obligation. But were I he, I'd give 'em a call, cite the work, date, etc., and ask where the hell HIS payment is. They have gone to once-yearly remuneration for authors, writers, etc. (I think).

However, telling a lady she can't breakout with a rousing chorus of "Wild Thing" is just a bit OTT, no?

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: meself
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 10:54 PM

Um .... I think I've told a lady that once or twice .... wait, that was no lady, that was - ba-da-da-boom!

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 02:06 PM

Of course if this kind of thing stopped canned music in pubs there might be an upside for live music...

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: GUEST,Ebor_fiddler
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 05:40 PM

Sorry Master McGrath, I don't think it works that way ... .. .

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: alanabit
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 06:12 PM

I have said this before on other threads, but the whole idea of collecting royalties for music, which is not bought and sold on a large commercial scale, is absurd. It can only cost more money than it can ever possibly deliver to composers. Indeed, it actually ends up costing them money. It is quite pointless creating paperwork and quangos for a cottage industry on a very small scale.

Subject: RE: Review: More buffoonery from Performing Rights S
From: Leadfingers
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 06:53 PM

Jobsworth , Jobsworth , its more than my job's worth !!

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: GUEST,nickp (cookieless)
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 04:52 AM

Hey Leadfingers, they'll be starting charging us for quoting lyrics next...

grin!

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 12:11 PM

What are quangos? (Interesting word.)

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 12:50 PM

QUANGO is an acronym for Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:51 AM

Is it possible that under the influence of the SNP the authorities in Scotland have deemed April 1st to fall in Oct??

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 12:21 PM

It leads one to wonder if the PRS, and their colleagues in the States, pay themselves munificent salaries out of the monies collected - or if they are all volunteers and the funds are passed along completely to their (alleged) clients.

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: s&r
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 01:04 PM

I think the bullies who approach the 'suspects' are probably ex doorstep salesmen who are paid commission only.

Stu

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 01:44 PM

Per Artbrooks:

It leads one to wonder if the PRS, and their colleagues in the States, pay themselves munificent salaries out of the monies collected - or if they are all volunteers and the funds are passed along completely to their (alleged) clients.

Think up some MORE funny jokes!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: Leadfingers
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 02:13 PM

We had a local PRS rep turn up at Tudor folk a few years back - gave out a sheaf of Forms for all performers to fill in !
A SURPRISING number of the returns only said 'Self Penned' or Trad arr by !

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: JHW
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 02:03 PM

The PRS should take revenue only from those who PROFIT from the music they perform.

Subject: RE: More buffoonery from Performing Rights Society
From: GUEST,Bill the sound
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 08:10 PM

At least they admitted they got it wrong-I doubt they realise how wrong!
Perhaps we should get McGarth of Harlow to sing his song to them
A LINCENCE TO SING.